Microsoft found not to have infringed on Motorola patent by ITC judge

ITC Judge David Shaw found on Friday that Microsoft's Xbox did not infringe on a Motorola patent by using technology that allowed the game console to communicate with accessories. The decision now goes up for review by the entire 6 member commission which does have the ability to issue a sales ban on a product it finds to have infringed on a patent.

The lone patent was all that was left from a case that started in 2010 when Motorola filed a claim against Microsoft in retaliation for the Redmond based software giant's demand for royalties from the sale of Android handsets. Not only does Microsoft have a licensing program setup for Android producers, it also won an exclusion order against Motorola for its ActiveSync program which let Motorola phones sync schedules between the handset and a PC.

Motorola's initial filing included five patents that it claimed Microsoft used illegally, including two that are widely used patents involving video decoding. One patent involved the H.264 video standard and other involved a patent on Wi-Fi connectivity. These two claims were challenged by Microsoft and regulators who said that they were standards essentially patents and should be subject to fair and reasonable licensing discussions and Motorola was accused of using these so called FRAND patents to wrangle a high royalty rate of 2.25% from Microsoft or face the possibility of a sales ban on the popular gaming console.

The case though, is far from over. Google can petition the commission and ask for the judge's ruling to be overruled and request a sales ban on the console.

"We are pleased with the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Microsoft did not violate Motorola’s patent and are confident that this determination will be affirmed by the Commission."-David Howard, Microsoft corporate vice president and deputy general counsel

"We are disappointed with today’s determination and look forward to the full Commission’s review."- Matt Kallman, Google spokesman

So does that mean that Microsoft shouldn't pay to use those patents? And if they refuse, should not penalties possibly including a ban be brought to bear?

It amazes me that these so called "essential" patents get less than trivial patents like the rubber banding effect and so on. Patents like that are there for show, nothing more. But essential patents are just that, essential. They are essential for the device to function in the manner it should. Without them you have a shiny expensive paper weight.

These companies who are under FRAND are "essentially" getting the shaft. They spend time, money, and resources on technology that connects people to each other. The FRAND process should mean that they're guaranteed compensation when someone uses their IP. Yet to get their compensation they have to go through just as many hoops as for a non essential patent. But the kicker is that after all that effort, they are limited in what they can get. So, just like all these people who say that abolishing the patent system will kill innovation, why would anyone want to have their IP become a standard? If there is no guarantee that they're going to be compensated for their idea, why would you enter into this process, especially if once it's all said and done, when someone uses that idea without paying their due, you could end up with less than what someone gets for an idea that offers nothing more than aesthetics?

5.Hemlocke (unregistered)

Of course they don't, because they are a benevolent entity. "Do No Evil," remember? In the next 20-30 minutes you will get plenty of revisionist history from blind fanboys who will write such gems as "Google and Motorola operate completely independent of each other," "Apple started the smartphone patent wars," and "It's okay to use FRAND-encumbered patents against Microsoft and Apple because they are evil and greedy." I love this stuff.

See my earlier post. If MS or Apple are using these essential patents and not paying for them, should they not be required to compensate the party on whom they infringed on? Does that only apply when someone infringes on their IP?

It's really not that difficult. If company A uses IP from company B in their product, they should pay company B for using it, if they don't and refuse to pay, a ban should be put in place until an agreement can be reached, otherwise what's their motivation to settle? As far as the amount asked for, it's right at the same amount Microsoft was getting from the companies they entered into a licensing agreement with. They were getting $5-$15 a phone for their infringed IP, which is right around 2.5% figuring a $500 device. If Microsoft can get it for their essential patents, shouldn't other companies get the same amount?

I've said this many times before, these governing bodies need to come up with a scale for patent value. FRAND patents get $X, hardware patents get $Y, and software patents get $Z. That would eliminate half of the court cases that are brought.

9.Hemlocke (unregistered)

Of course they should have to pay for licenses if they use the IP. That's just common sense. However, that being said, Motorola/Google and Samsung should not be able to just define new rates for FRAND to competitors, when a baseline has been established, nor should they be able to use them offensively until every effort has been made to agree to reasonable FRAND terms. The problem here is all Google and Samsung, because they are stung that two companies have caught them using unlicensed IP, so they feel they should be able to charge Apple and Microsoft more.

Where has it come out what they were charging other companies? I looks when this FRAND lawsuit started and I was never able to find what they were charging others. The only numbers I have seen in that Moto wanted 2.5%, Samsung was a bit higher, Microsoft is getting around $5-$15 (which is around 1-2.5% with a $500 device), and Apple wanted an amount beyond Samsung's while offering them a fraction of that for their IP. But without knowing what they're getting from others, there's no way to know if what they're charging is fair and reasonable. So far the only one we really had a clear idea on was Microsoft, because everytime the put another oem under their umbrella we had an idea what hey were paying, if not the exact figure.

Like I said, they need a flat rate scale for patents, no more of this d**kering BS. You can adjust for inflation or the governing body can change it with input from patent holders, but the rates would be universal and apply to everyone the same. And as a last resort if they don't comply, a product ban is levied until they do. Simple.

All content (phone reviews, news, specs, info), design and layouts are Copyright 2001-2015 phoneArena.com. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part or in any form or medium without written permission is prohibited! Privacy . Terms of use . Cookies . Team